Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 69433-8.,69433-8. |
| Citation | 27 P.3d 608 |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 587, Respondent, v. The STATE of Washington, Appellant, the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellant-Intervenor. Vashon-Maury Island Community Council, Respondent, v. The State of Washington, Appellant, the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellant-Intervenor. City of Bainbridge Island, Respondent, v. The State of Washington, Appellant, the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellant-Intervenor. Tacoma Water, Respondent, v. The State of Washington, Appellant, the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellant-Intervenor. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Respondent, v. The State of Washington, Appellant, the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellant-Intervenor. Port of Whitman County, Respondent, v. The State of Washington and the $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign, Appellants. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Respondent, v. The State of Washington, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 142 Wash.2d 183, 11 P.3d 762, be changed as follows:
1. The caption of the opinion is changed to read as set forth above.
2. In the eighth line from the top of page 197 first column, line 8 of p. 776 of 11 P.3d, the sentence beginning with the words "In Tacoma Water" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:
In Tacoma Water v. State, Tacoma Water (a division of Tacoma's Department of Public Utilities), Covington Water District, Lakehaven Utility District, Seattle Public Utilities (a Seattle city department), and individual E.E. (Ted) Coates (an individual voter paying rates and taxes) sought a declaratory judgment that the voter approval requirements of section 2 of I-695 do not apply to water rates or other utility charges (including charges for goods, services, or benefits provided in exchange for monetary or other consideration), to local improvement assessments, to connection or capacity charges, or to intergovernmental and intragovernmental payments and charges.
3. In the 16th line from the bottom of page 198 2nd column, 27 lines from top of page 776 of 11 P.3d, the sentence beginning with the words "The $30" is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place:
The $30 License Tab Initiative Campaign (the Campaign) was a defendant in Port of Whitman County v. State and intervened in all other cases except Puget Sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
83 cases
-
Amunrud v. Board of Appeals
...156 Wash.2d 752, 757, ¶ 9, 131 P.3d 892 (2006) (citing Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 205, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000); Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wash. Life & Disability Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 83 Wash.2d 523, 528-29, 520 P.2d 162 (1974); Hemphill v. Tax Comm'n, 6......
-
City of Wenatchee, Corp. v. Chelan Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, Corp.
...the constitution.” Id. at 757, 131 P.3d 892 (citing Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 205, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000)). ¶ 19 These same principles require rejection of the PUD's argument that articles VII and XI of the Washington Constitution limit the legi......
-
Associated Press v. Washington State Legislature
...exercise of the reserved power of the people to legislate." Amalg. Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 204, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000). "In approving an initiative measure, the people exercise the same power of sovereignty as the Legislature does when enacting a statute.......
-
Burns v. City of Seattle
...This court had occasion to interpret the term "imposed" in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000). That case involved the constitutionality of Initiative 695, which provided, in part, that "`[a]ny tax increase imposed by the state shal......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Revisiting Granite Falls: Why the Seattle Monorail Project Requires Re-examination of Washington's Prohibition
...legislative power. See, e.g., Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash. 2d 183,233-34, 11 P.3d 762, 794 (2000), amended at 27 P.3d 608 (explaining that, "[u]nder art. II, § 1, [t]he legislative authority of the State is vested in the Legislature ... and it is unconstitutional ......
-
Executive Privilege Under Washington's Separation of Powers Doctrine
...State Supreme Court. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash. 2d 183, 274, 11 P.3d 762, 814 (2000), opinion corrected, 27 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2001) (identifying Justice Cooley as a "renowned constitutional scholar and treatise author relied upon at least 170 times by this court")......
-
Table of Cases
...cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 (1989): 11.4(9) Amalgamated Transit Union Loc. 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 11 P.3d 762 (2000), corrected, 27 P.3d 608 (2001): 10.2, 13.3 Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Office of Attorney Gen. of Wash., 177 Wn.2d 467, 300 P.3d 799 (2013): 3.3(4)(b)(ii), 12.7(1), 12.7(1......
-
§ 13.3 Mootness
...will not be deemed moot. See, e.g., Amalgamated Transit UnionLoc. 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 200-01, 11 P.3d 762 (2000), corrected, 27 P.3d 608 (2001); Klickitat Cnty. Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619, 631-32, 860 P.2d 390, 866 P.2d 1256 The appellate cou......